Accepting Apologetic "answers" as a given

[_Mercury]

Is any real analysis done by those who accept apologetic nonsense? What I am getting at is that the act of acknowledging a response to troubling beliefs, history and inconsistencies in Mormonism (or any other sstem of belief backed up through apologetics) is the proof the believer is looking for no matter how silly.

FARMS exists to grind out responses to critical analysis of Mormonism and the utility of this process is that the Mormon will eat it up no matter what it is.

Why is there no debate within apologetics as to the validity of apologetic works, specifically why do the LGT apologists not write papers denouncing those who claim specific geographical locations and vice versa? If FARMS were truly scholarly there would be debate instead of the "everything is plausible, we don't argue against conflicting views" approach?

Go on naysayers, show me the wishywashy responses to apologists from other apologists.

[_The Nehor]

From Nehor to all theorists convinced that the Book of Mormon happened in western Bolivia:

"You're all wrong you morons."

Does that work?

[_Mercury]

From Nehor to all theorists convinced that the Book of Mormon happened in western Bolivia:

"You're all wrong you morons."

Does that work?

Its a start

[_The Nehor]

From Nehor to all theorists convinced that the Book of Mormon happened in western Bolivia:

"You're all wrong you morons."

Does that work?

Its a start

Well, I'm too lazy to do anymore. Someone else will have to take over. I'm a true pioneer, leading and showing others where to follow.